Administrators of Dumond v. Carpenter
3 Johns. 183
Opinion
The answer to the first objection is, that the first count in the declaration is good in assumpsit, for the law will, and always does raise an assumpsit from the misapplication of money received to the use of another. The answer to the second objection is,, that if a terns' intervene between the teste and return of a writ of inquiry, it creates no prejudice to the party, and is, at any rate, only a miscontinuance, which is cured by the statute of jeofails. (Sayer, 245.)
The judgment must be affirmed.-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Administrators of Dumond v. Carpenter, 3 Johns. 183 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1808).
3 Johns. 183 (Administrators of Dumond v. Carpenter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Kean v. Maryland Casualty Co.
210 A.D. 245 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1924)
Mumford v. Wright
12 Colo. App. 214 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1898)
Baker v. Moore
4 A.D. 234 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
Strough v. Board of Supervisors
3 N.Y.S. 110 (New York Supreme Court, 1888)
People ex rel. Keiley v. Spier
54 How. Pr. 73 (New York Supreme Court, 1877)
Ferguson v. Dunn's Administrator
28 Ind. 58 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1867)
Root v. King & Verplanck
7 Cow. 613 (New York Supreme Court, 1827)
Miller v. Plumb
6 Cow. 665 (New York Supreme Court, 1827)
Arnold v. Lyman
17 Mass. 400 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1821)